Atheism is unnatural

[po18guy]

Nailed it!

 

[PickyPicky]

Funny enough, most atheists believe in God enough to hate Him with a fiery passion. How can one devote so much time and emotion to someone that supposedly doesn’t exist?

Nailed it!

Would any atheists here who hate God with a fiery passion please raise their right hands.

 

[po18guy]

They are on speaking tours, writing books and granting media interviews.

 

[o_mlly]

Genetic material is transferred by descent (with some irrelevant exceptions). All living things share genetic material. Therefore living things evolved to their present state. The ‘theory’ of evolution is about the process by which this fact is explained.

And that speculative theory remains in the realm of doubt. The error of elevating a speculation expressed properly as “may explain” to improperly expressed as “does explain” paves the way for the introduction of new claims such as “evolutionary psychology” to be proffered as emanating from the solid foundation of science rather than the shaky foundation of an unproven speculation.

 

[o_mlly]

We don’t ‘come to know’. We decide.

So you believe that truth is dependent on the way men may think about it. Therefore, the truth is not singular but changes as men from place to place or time to time change their minds. Nonsense.

 

[Dan123]

Our understanding and decisions on morality change. That’s what was being discussed not some cosmic sense of truth.

 

[o_mlly]

Our understanding and decisions on morality change. That’s what was being discussed not some cosmic sense of truth.

Morality is objective. If morality is subjective then morality can be anything. If morality can be anything then morality is nothing. Atheists need not justify what they think about nothing.

 

[goout]

FrancisFan43:

Funny enough, most atheists believe in God enough to hate Him with a fiery passion. How can one devote so much time and emotion to someone that supposedly doesn’t exist?

Nailed it!

Would any atheists here who hate God with a fiery passion please raise their right hands.

You can know what a person feels passionate about by looking at their time management. By that standard, there are quite a few atheists coming here daily who are very passionate about God.

Glad you are here and keep coming!

 

[Dan123]

Morality is objective.

That’s the claim sure but this is a thread about atheism, atheists don’t make this assumption. If we agree upon criteria for assessing morality then you can absolutely make objective claims.

If morality can be anything then morality is nothing.

Absurd. The value of money is subjective but money isn’t worth ‘nothing’. The value of art, music, literature etc are extremely subjective and can indeed be anything, but I bet you’d feel a loss in the world if we suddenly had none of them.

 

[goout]

o_mlly:

You beg the question. How do we come to know what is inhuman?

We don’t ‘come to know’. We decide. You are constantly begging the question: you amuse the existence of some sort of transcendent morality an claim that anything else is therefore not truly moral.

Hey, look! Human beings have stomachs. And we eat in order to sustain ourselves, live and flourish. It is good to live and flourish. Yes, let’s eat, AND let’s help those who can’t find food! Yes, that’s good.

@FiveLinden : No I decide none of that is worthwhile. My government decides none of that is worthwhile. (well, wait, maybe for my kind…I decide feeding people is worthwhile…for my kind. Jews and others, I decide not so much)

The argument for “subjective morality” is embarrassingly empty, and when put into practice leads to oppression of peoples subject to your “decisions”. And I don’t think you yourself can admit you embrace it. It’s simply a failed thrust against the concept of objectivity, which atheists are uncomfortable with conceding.

 

[Dan123]

The argument for “subjective morality” is embarrassingly empty.

And the argument for objective morality seems to be “it exists because I think it has to”. Is that much better?

 

[PickyPicky]

You can know what a person feels passionate about by looking at their time management. By that standard, there are quite a few atheists coming here daily who are very passionate about God

Clearly not true, otherwise I would be passionate about sleeping and shopping and cooking and washing dishes. But even if it were true, I await the explanation of where the “hate God” bit fits in.

 

[goout]

goout:

The argument for “subjective morality” is embarrassingly empty.

And the argument for objective morality seems to be “it exists because I think it has to”. Is that much better?

Is THAT the argument for objective morality.
My gosh, all this time here, and now we learn the truth. That’s really a well reasoned exposition of morality. Thanks Dan.

 

[goout]

PickyPicky:

You can know what a person feels passionate about by looking at their time management. By that standard, there are quite a few atheists coming here daily who are very passionate about God

Clearly not true, otherwise I would be passionate about sleeping and shopping and cooking and washing dishes. But even if it were true, I await the explanation of where the “hate God” bit fits in.

I don’t think you hate God.
I think your presence, passion, and participation here speaks for itself.
Glad that you are here.

 

[Dan123]

Is THAT the argument for objective morality.

Oh sorry did you not like your nuanced stance reduced down to a laughably simplistic parody? I thought that’s what we were doing based on your post. Apologies.

As I said, objective morality isn’t assumed to exist by atheists. You’re welcome to argue otherwise.

 

[goout]

goout:

Is THAT the argument for objective morality.

Oh sorry did you not like your nuanced stance reduced down to a laughably simplistic parody? I thought that’s what we were doing based on your post. Apologies.

Can you address the analogy in my post Dan?

Why do the disciples of Reason struggle with reason? I think that explains a lot about why you’re here. You must know that religious Reason is not very reasonable. Hence, God.
This is a dangerous place to be if you want to go on worshipping Reason.
Glad you are here.

 

[Dan123]

Atheists don’t ‘worship’ reason. It’s not difficult to justify feeding the hungry when you even casually glance at how a society’s treatment of such people affects the society as a whole. It can even be selfish, “some day I may need food and not be able to feed myself, it would benefit me to live in a society that ensures all are fed.” If someone gets a ‘good feeling’ out of doing so even better but you can literally rest on selfishness alone if you don’t want to push it any further.

 

[goout]

Atheists don’t ‘worship’ reason. It’s not difficult to justify feeding the hungry when you even casually glance at how a society’s treatment of such people affects the society as a whole. It can even be selfish, “some day I may need food and not be able to feed myself, it would benefit me to live in a society that ensures all are fed.” If someone gets a ‘good feeling’ out of doing so even better but you can literally rest on selfishness alone if you don’t want to push it any further.

But Dan, you said there are no objective sources for morality, that we decide what is moral. So who are you to say that Stalin was wrong to purge, for food’s sake. Choice baby! (no pun intended)

Dan, did I misunderstand you?

Please correct me.

 

[goout]

Atheists don’t ‘worship’ reason.
…

What do atheists worship then? (sorry, worship is very offensive )

What do atheists spend lot’s of valuable intellectual, emotional, spiritual time doing?
Answer: talking about a God that doesn’t exist.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s the claim sure but this is a thread about atheism …

You need to keep up with the posts. The thread started out to be about atheism but morphed, as threads usually do, into a discussion of morality way back in post #34:

Yes I am aware that atheists can be moral, but how can an atheist justify morality?

The value of money is subjective but money isn’t worth ‘nothing’.

See how threads can morph? From morality to a claim on the economics of money. The value of money is exactly what a willing buyer gives to a willing seller, let’s say, for 3.25 pounds of potatoes or a replication of da Vinci’s The Last Supper.